The main legal point established is the requirement for legal representation in execution proceedings and the significance of timely contesting proceedings as a legal heir.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral) - By way of present revision petition challenge has been made to the orders dated 16.02.2022 and 13.05.2022 passed by the Executing Court whereby, objections petition filed at the instance of petitioner who happens to be legal heir of one of the judgment debtor has been dismissed and the sale of his property by way of auction held on 18.01.2022 has been confirmed.

2. Facts leading to the present case are that a decree for recovery of mesne profit @ Rs.5,000/- per acre, per year was passed in favour of respondent/decree holder by the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Ajnala, on 23.07.2010. Grandfather of the present petitioner namely Nihal Singh son of Mohan Singh happened to be one of JD in the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2010 whose land situated in Village Sheikh Bhatti was ordered to be attached in the execution proceedings vide order dated 20.10.2016. In an execution proceedings, an application dated 17.01.2020 came to be filed at the instance of decree holder praying for restraining the present petitioner from transferring/alienating the aforementioned land allegedly inherited by him from Nihal Singh i.e. his grandfather by virtue of registered Will dated 16.06.2017 followed by mutation No. 1262. On the aforesaid application, executing Court vide order dated 18.02.2020, directed attachment of the property inherited by Tejpal Singh from his grandfather and further alienating the same in any manner till the satisfaction of the executing proceedings.

3. Thereafter, as ordered by the executing Court, auction of 22 Kanai of land originally owned by JD-Nihal Singh situated in village Sheikh Bhatti was put to auction on 18.01.2022. The 'auction purchaser' who happened to be the son of the decree holder deposited 25% of the auction amount on 21.01.2022 and prayed for time for deposit of the balance 75% amount within a period of 15 days, which even was duly made.

4. After the deposit of entire amount of auction at the hands of auction purchaser, objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 CPC were filed on 15.02.2022 at the instance of petitioner, on the ground that he being one of the successor of Nihal Singh as regards land in question which was put to auction was required to be impleaded as necessary party in the executing proceedings before putting it to auction. On notice, a detailed reply to those objections was filed at the instance of respondent No.l decree holder on 23.10.2022. Vide order dated 16.03.2022, the executing Court dismissed the same and later vide its order dated 13.05.2022 confirmed the auction proceedings/sale in favour of auction purchaser by issuance of sale certificate. By way of present revision petition challenge has been made to the aforesaid orders dated 16.03.2022 as well as 13.05.2022.

5. By placing reliance upon Order 22 Rule 12 CPC and taking aid to judgment passed in case of ' V. Uthirapathi Vs. Ashrab Ali, reported as 1998 AIR (Supreme Court) 1168, as well as Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that once he inherited the property in question from his grandfather namely Nihal Singh, one of the JD by way of registered Will dated 16.06.2017, he was at least required to be impleaded as the legal heir of JD before passing any order as regards the property in question inherited by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that the non-impleadment of the petitioner in the executing proceedings has substantially prejudiced his rights under Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby, he could have availed his remedies/rights for setting aside the sale deed by deposit of the decretal amount with the executing Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in fact the legal heirs who were impleaded at the instance of decree holder vide order dated 09.09.2019 were the father and real uncle of the petitioner who in fact we